I shall state my belief about this, along with my advice for you to make your own, informed, opinion:
- Peer-review as a bottleneck on the road to legacy publication is BAD
- Peer-review as an authority argument (I read the article because is published in a peer-reviewed journal) is UNSCIENTIFIC
- Open, perpetual peer-review offers a huge potential for scientific communication, thus is GOOD.
- It is though the option of the author to choose to submit the article to public attention, this should not be mandatory.
- Moreover, smart editors should jump on the possibility to exploit open peer-review instead of
- the old way to throw to the wastebasket the peer-reviews, once the article is accepted or rejected, which is BAD.
- Finally, there is NO OBLIGATION for youngsters to peer-review, contrary to the folklore that it is somehow their duty to the community to do this. No, this is only a perverse way to keep the legacy publishing going, as long as the publishers use them only as an anonymous filter. On the contrary, youngsters, everybody honest in fact, should be
encouraged to userewarded for using any of the abundant new means of communication for the benefit of research.
This post is motivated by the Mike Taylor’s Why peer-review may be worth persisting with, despite everything and by comments at the post Two pieces of all too obvious propaganda.
See also the post Journal of uncalled advices (and links therein).